Post navigation

2 Comments

hello sisters of resistance.
As a man I read your flowchart with some interest. However, given that at two stages the answer yes or no has no impact on progress, these questions are redundant and can be eliminated in the interest of tight logic. The upshot of this is that the actual pre-RDAF selection process runs: Smells good YES > seems good in bed YES. As I can vouch from experience that not everyone who seems good in bed is, and moreover, some people who don’t seem as if they’d be good in bed are, this leads me to conclude that the only solid criterion for your judgement is whether the candidate smells good.
Smelling good is as simple as washing regularly and/or using aftershave, yet it appears to be the key factor in accessing a revolutionary sista’s pum-pum. How can this be so?
Any insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

hello Corin,
thank you for your thoughtful comments. the sisters of resistance are in agreement with you that the flowchart does represent a serious oversimplification of access to a revolutionary sista’s pum-pum and could do with more detailed iterations.

you are right in your conclusion that smelling good is not and should not be seen as the only criteria for access. among the items for consideration we have failed to include in this first model are whether or not the prospect in question poses an element of danger to us, which should, but unfortunately, often does not, eschew him/her from further advancement, as well as the highly complex subject of “game” which is left completely unaddressed (and could likely do with a detailed flowchart of its own). we also understand that administering the full RDAF is very unlikely to happen at the stage in the flowchart where it is currently located and therefore necessitates further consideration as to how it may best be used in conjunction with this model.

while we acknowledge your critique and by all means plan take it into account, we stand by the general implications of the original flowchart as a broad-strokes model of the thought process in which we engage when considering a sexual encounter. however, we do appreciate the way in which your constructive commentary helps to highlight the model’s subtext — that despite identifying politically as revolutionary, physical attraction (smell apparently being the most important) — continues to play an excessively primary role in our selection of of sexual partners, and that this is a critical issue that needs addressing, as it has thus far resulted in serious issues of disappointment and under-performance, especially when said attraction + encounters have led on to longer-term relationships.